Arguments On Obamacare Conclude, SCOTUS Decision Due By Late June

The deliberations on Obamacare have ended. The next catalyst will be late June, when the Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether Obamacare is constitutional or not. If overturned, expect lots of fingerpointing, and even more allegations that it is all Bush's fault, especially if the vote goes down according to party lines.

From Reuters:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ended more than six hours of oral arguments over three days about whether President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law would survive constitutional scrutiny, setting up to deliver a ruling on its fate by late June.

Over the past three days, the nine-member court delved into whether Congress exceeded its authority by requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty, along with whether the entire wide-ranging law must be struck down if they found that critical provision to be invalid.

SCOTUS is merely playing its role in the two-party paradigm; highlight an alleged difference between "democrats" and "republicans" in order to make the masses believe they have a choice in November and that elections actually matter.

Fewer and fewer are fooled by this each year. This is the reason for the accelerating police state.

You are right. And most of all, we can all make wild guesses about which cases the "conservative" judges will concede to side with the "liberal" judges if the latter ones agree to vote against Obamacare.

During an Obamacare litigation hearing this week, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James L. Graham asked acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, "Where ultimately is the limit on Congressional power?" The question sounds rhetorical but is not. The administration argues that Congress has Constitutional authority under the Article I Section 8 "commerce clause" to compel uninsured Americans to purchase health care insurance.

The logic goes back to the 1942 Supreme Court case "Wickard v. Filburn" in which Ohio farmer Roscoe Filburn was fined for growing wheat in excess of New Deal--era crop quotas. Mr. Filburn argued that the quotas did not apply to his particular circumstances because he was growing feed for his own chickens, not to sell. But the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that "control of total supply... depends upon control of individual supply," and by growing his own chicken feed, Mr. Filburn was not buying it from others. Also New Deal agricultural programs were so effective, according to the court, that Mr. Filburn should stop complaining about impositions on his freedom and show a little gratitude.

The Obama administration takes this pernicious logic a step further by compelling people to buy things they don't want. Since there is no interstate commerce to regulate, the government mandates it. But Judge Graham's question can be answered by employing the same argument that Chief Justice John Marshall employed in the foundational case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). If Congress can exercise powers that are in practice unlimited, then as Justice Marshall concluded, "written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable." It is "a proposition too plain to be contested" that the Constitution cannot be used to justify an act that destroys the very limits on which constitutional government is founded.

In essence, Obamacare must be unconstitutional, because if it stands it would remove the limits to Congressional power that the Constitution was designed to impose. The Constitution is not a suicide pact even if Obamacare is.

I doubt it will be struck down probably parts of it will be removed or it will be sent back to the lower courts. If by chance it did Obummer will lose it and there is no telling what the megalomaniac will do.

I believe the only issue before the court is mandated purchase of medical insurance.

If that part is struck down, medical insurance companies are gonna go bankrupt carrying out the other mandates in Obamacare like covering all pre-existing conditions, etc.

I believe it was set up that way. I believe they knew mandated purchase would be struck down and insurance companies would have to implement the rest of it without that flood of money coming in, forcing them to beg for government help, allowing Obama to nationalize the medical system.

And no, it's not "healthcare". They don't know a damn thing about health.

Since there is no severability clause in the law, odds are decent they will move to strike down the whole law if part of it is found unconstitutional. Many, many laws passed by congress include a severability provision - this one does not. I would guess that SCOTUS would not try to interpret what "Congress meant" vs looking at what they passed - that would set a very big precedent.

There is nothing preventing Congress from rewriting portions of the law, enacting a tax to pay for it and re-passing it - which is what the Court is likely to argue in its ruling. However, Congress knows that it would be next to impossible now coming up on election year.

Everyone agrees that going the way it is with healthcare will not last long - at 9% growth per year in costs at some point in the not so distant future the whole thing will collapse on itself.

Rather than focus on the root cause of the cost increases, they chose to try to chuck more money and bodies at it which will not work. No diff than issuing more debt to solve a debt problem. Well, short term it might but we all know how it will end ...

I would love to see the whole thing struck down, but it's not SCOTUS tradition to rule in such a broad manner. They'll likely rule just on the mandated purchase issue since that's the only constitutional issue, and simply not address the rest of it. That's how SCOTUS typically operates, very focused on one issue.

Like I said above, I believe the real goal of Obamacare is nationalize the medical system. The mandated purchase thing is a trojan horse put in specifically to fool insurance companies into supporting and fool congress into passing what essentially is a medical system nationalization act.

The real goal of Obamacare is not some sinister plot to nationalize the health care system. Obamacare is simply stealth corporate welfare for the health insurance industry. In return for having to do things like cover pre-existing conditions and nominally reduce the cost of certain basic services, it literally makes every citizen in the nation a captive buyer. You can bet that the insurance companies had their actuaries crunch the cost/benefit-analysis numbers in monstrous excel spreadsheets to determine that they would make even more money, which is why they pushed this law.

There is a big difference in the make-up of the congress as it stands now. The democrats will have an almost impossible task to come up with another boondoggle. They couldn't come up with 60 votes in the senate and the house would just laugh at them.

I think that if they toss it, they pretty much have to toss it all, because there's no way in hell they're going to do the legal analysis of a 2700 page catalogue of corruption to try to figure out what if anything remaining is legit.

Guys, Obama didn't even write his own syllabus. The prose is sophisticated, the grammar is flawless, and the punctuation is good - heck, there are several semicolons used, and used correctly. In other words, the syllabus is everything that every other sample of genuine Obama-written prose is not. It isn't the same voice. It isn't the same author. Period.

Every sample of genuine Obama-written prose in existence is HORRIFIC in terms of prose, grammar and punctuation. Agonizingly horrific. Please see Jack Cashill's body of work, including several new pieces at AmericanThinker.com .

Look at the course structure itself. Obama only had to bluff his way through four actual class periods, with most of those class periods consisting of student discussion. Students were explicitly graded on their participation in these four class sessions. The other six sessions were "small group project" presentations by the students. Obama wouldn't have to say or do anything in those class periods except play the part of the "wise professor." Total scammage.

I think Obama was (and is) so stupid, and such a fraud that he had to have someone else prepare his course for him, including what little bit of lecture he delivered in those four class sessions.

Who might have prepared a course syllabus and light lecture notes on constitutional race issues with an emphasis toward education and race?

Bernardine Dohrn. As in Bill Ayers' wife.

Bernardine Dohrn was a paralegal at the Chicago law firm of Sidley Austin from 1984-1988, and, as an aside, was very likely acquainted with Michelle Robinson (later Obama) when Michelle summer interned at Sidley Austin while she was in law school and was later hired right out of Harvard Law in 1988. The dates match exactly. Barry was hired as a summer associate by Sidley Austin in 1989 while he was still in law school. That is allegedly how he and Michelle met. Since both Barry and Michelle are affirmative action frauds and put together don't have the brains God gave a goldfish, neither one lasted long in an actual performance environment, and have only ever held non-performing meaningless crony positions.

The reason Dohrn was a paralegal and not an attorney is only because she was a convicted felon per her terrorism activities with the Weather Underground back in the 1960s and 1970s. Dohrn was fully capable of passing the bar, and was working as a de facto attorney at Sidley Austin, just under the necessary title "paralegal" due to her criminal past.

So, here we have yet another possible connection between Bill Ayers-Bernardine Dohrn and both of the Obamas. But back to the syllabus.

We now know that Bill Ayers' parents put Obama through Harvard, thanks to Allen Hulton's testimony. The Ayers also knew that Obama was a lightweight intellectually who needed as much help with his academic tasks as he needed with his finances. Now Obama had been hired at the prestigious University of Chicago law school as an adjunct and had to actually teach a class - and appear credible. So, roll in the Ayers-Dohrn machine to the rescue. Just like the way that Ayers came to the rescue and wrote "Dreams From My Father" for Barry.

Lawyer-in-all-but-name Bernardine Dohrn puts together a curriculum including lecture notes, and even writes the syllabus for Obama (as evidenced by the excellent prose, grammar and punctuation). All she needs to do is give Obama a few rhetorical platforms per class session (of which there were only FOUR) upon which he can then launch "class discussion." Dohrn could have put this together in just a few hours. In class, Barry kicks back, fakes the role of all-wise "professor", and cruises while the students in the class basically teach themselves.

It should be mentioned that Dohrn has been a law professor since 1991, and focuses on race and juvenile/education issues. Which is pretty much exactly the focus of Obama's course syllabus.

Oh, and Bill Ayers has a Ed.D. in "Curriculum and Instruction." As in, putting together curricula.

The people must be more stupid than the people they elect. If the politicians were more stupid than the people, it would prove just how much more stupid the people were than the politicians who were elected. (Slightly paraphrased)

This is an often-cited example of Barry's incompetent writing while a Harvard student. I was hoping to find exactly what others claim to find so obvious, but it just ain't there. Except for a few typos (missing letters from three or four words), the grammatical sophistication and narrative voice are exactly what I've come to cynically know as "Barry."

IMO, the guy has an obvious gift for language that is easy to see in his speeches and other oral remarks (teleprompter notwithstanding.) This explains his otherwise incomprehensible command of "black English" with the ease of a native speaker, in spite of growing up completely apart from all natural African-American influences.

He had to pass the bill to find out what was in it! What I don't get is that Democrat, Republican matters what???? Are they not to rule on the constitution? Or have I have terribly missed something? Go ahead hit me with it, in 3,2,1......

Does it even matter what they decide? FedGov is so deeply involved in every aspect of healthcare now, that the trend is probably impossible to reverse short of total system collapse. Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other giant federal programs have so badly distorted free market healthcare economics that it is pretty much a hopeless situation.

It matters because every social program the govt created and oversees is a financial failure. They are dependent on more and more younger people subsidizing a few. Oh, and they want to abort and prevent births with contraception coverage. The sooner the Ponzi logic gets revealed the better; either by changing course because we have discovered individual liberty, or by financial default because we failed to correct course.

Let's hope it is the former and that there is a rebirth of American liberty. The latter is the SHTF if it already hasn't done so. Where else can one go for freedom in the modern world? We used to be Galt's Gulch.

Kagan wouldn't recuse herself even though she was solicitor general and ass deep in the administrations efforts to get Obama care passed. You can bet your bottom dollar this goes party line even though it's a no brainer, unconstitutional mandate.

The fact this even has to go to the Supreme Court when it's so obviously unconstitutional proves how traitorous the legislative branch has become. They are not the legitimate government of this country and ANYONE who works for them, including those in the military, are traitors in my opinion.

Imo the "mandate" was a farce from the get go. The Dems knew that forcing Americans to pay a "tax" would be hugely unpopular coming up on election. So they thought they could get away with the individual mandate until after Barrys re-election in 2012 (and Congress too).

At this point they would "reform" the law to make it a tax vs penalty because there are no repurcussions for doing so at this point - at leat not for 4 years. They were hoping to fake it along far enough that they could get through the election.

If you knew you were responsible for diabetes costs, anti-cholesterol bills, and so on...you'd view the cheeseburger as the free market actor that you SHOULD be.

In Minnesota, they make your family doctor respnonsible for your success in changing lifestyle by withholding pay, denigrating your"quality" on websites and other manner of inducement. The Pawlenty administration even wanted groups to pay for a dietician to take you to the grocery store to help educate you on how to make food choices. How fucking backwards is that? When the doctor is more responsible for your choices then you...the costs and dysfunction of central planning become comic.

We are at step 9 or 10 of Hayek's Road to Serfdom. The failure of the planners is merely a short time away. Then the Strong Man will come and use the crisis to "make the an work".

I'm shocked! Shocked to hear that the SCOTUS would divide along partisan lines.

What is even more shocking (seriously) is that in this instant information, 24 hour news, Twitter, and Facebook age that we have traditionalists on the Court willing to pretend to take a few weeks to seriously consider their opinions before issuing them.

Surely they could arrive at a 140 character statement before sundown if they really took the Constitution seriously.

They would dump Obama if they lived in reality. Instead, they will demonize the court, twist Oral arguments into one of their damn narratives, and double down with more anti-freedom agenda items that divide class, race, and religion.

After all, they want no constitution. They are not for the first amendment, the second, the tenth, and enumerated powers. They don't want individual rights, or even the concept of America.

SCOTUS as a body is a farse. After listening to the Supreme Morons on this case, and the lawyers, if anybody had any doubt about the lack of intelligence and moral foundation, reflective of the Spirit in the Constitution, that doubt has been shattered.

The fact is, nobody even considered (durring the argument(s)) the contempt of the ''Government's current standing'', as it now stands out of order, and in debt, with an Income Tax System and Federal Reserve System of tax, which binds persons to government and not government bound by what persons have to offer. No mention of a Commerce Tax System in the argument(s), which would maintain propper order, or how such a ''sales'' type tax destroys the argument of the Government in this case.

On a local and State level, the tax, at the point of purchase, set(s) the foundation for order and maintains separation from Government contempt as it now stands. The ''set price for (health)care etc...'', in a commerce tax system, raises the price of ''service'' at the point of purchase on a local level first and confirms the ''health'' of the individual. When the price becomes to high, the first ''control'' over the Government Employees is ''confirmed'' by free individuals (health) ability to pay (endorce). When persons can't pay (or elect not to buy) their first ''vote'' is defined at the point of purchase. Their vote (health condition) transfers at the ballot box, this is the second vote for ''order'' or ''care''. If you can't quantify it from there it's because you are an evil dipshit. Balance (the market) and the Constitution are revelations of the individual(labor), the Government Branches bare no fruit in this case.

SCOTUS already ruled (committed suicide) that the Government Robot is equal with a human.

The Government (the employees and robot(s)) is a clear and present danger and currently stands in contempt of life. It (persons and robots) is the enemy of all persons, life freedom liberty independence and justice. SCOTUS has no power in the eyes of man. SCOTUS is the suicide beast to be devoured.

This ruling is not relevant one way or the other, the civil war against the Government (robot) employess is now full on, from here out, and their lives (life in general) are subject to the rules now set in place by ''them'', from NDAA on down. The humans that ''care'' about their life (life in general), and their own health, have been placed in defense by the Government offender(s).

The time for civil war is upon this generation and there is no avoiding it. This Court may delay their demise by ruling in favor of sustaining their own lves and freedom in this case, for about half a second.

I would only say that I did not see Moronism in oral arguments. I thought the questions asked of the solicitor general thoroughly, and quickly left him utterly disarmed. They knew all the soft spots. Even Sotomayor was wise enough to interrupt Carbin every time he was effectively making his point.

Some on this board have asked why not everyone is allowed to buy into Medicare.

The reason why not everyone is allowed to buy Medicare, is becuase of the hidden cost-shifting going on between Medicare and the Private Insurance Companies.

Federal Law caps the amount Medicare will pay for any given medical procedure, and often pays far less than the cost of actual service. Therefore to keep the system working, medical providers are forced to charge Private Insurance Compaines 4 or 5 times what Medicare will pay.

This fact is one of the hidden drivers which has been forcing up private insurance premiumns as more and more people become qualified to go on Medicare.

I think it is the govt subsidy itself that ruins healthcare. It distorts the marketplace. In fact their is no marketplace. The people demanding healthcare are the customer. Under this model, the customer does not know the price, seemingly does not pay for excesses in demand, and thinks the product is a right.

The free market is the solution. And it can come voluntarily, or when the current non-market based structure collapses, as it has no choice but to do.

I think it is the govt subsidy itself that ruins healthcare. It distorts the marketplace. In fact their is no marketplace. The people demanding healthcare are the customer. Under this model, the customer does not know the price, seemingly does not pay for excesses in demand, and thinks the product is a right.

The free market is the solution. And it can come vuntarily, or when the current non-market based structure collapses.

Well the rioting will be fueled by the media who will say the worst posible things to fuel resentment from those who thought they had a free ride. If it is struck down there is nothing preventing Congress from re-passing the exact same law with a tax provision to pay for it vs the mandate. Unfortunately we all know that there is no way that bill will ever pass again.

The smart thing would be to take steps in that direction rather than a massive all at once approach. But we are talking Congress here who is mostly interested in paying back those who got them elected AND getting re-elected rather than doing the right thing.

Robert Reich proferred what I think could be a great solution, since the Supremes sticking point seems to be letting the government mandate a purchase from "private" interests. Let people buy into Medicare, which is run by the gov, not private interests. We already pay for it and SS from paycheck deductions; just add a little more and everyone is covered! Backdoor way to Single-payer which Obama & the CON-gress never even considered.

I've got a better idea than health insurance. Save money, purchase healthcare services when you need them. It'd be great if that savings account were tax deductible and tax-free on withdrawal. I may even use the money in the account to purchase long-term bonds that go to build the hospital I'd in theory use. Or maybe I could use some of the money to invest in companies that research cures for the diseases I may be genetically predisposed to contracting. I may even have a motivation to live a healthy lifestyle and not take unnecessary risks with my health. I also may make more realistic arrangements to account for end of life situations.

Seems a lot better than rolling a health put with the government insurance company every month. Seems like the one with the cash rules in this situation. But a few of you can convince yourselves that they're not going to fuck you over something fierce.

Since there appears to be a dearth of legal analysis here as a lawyer I'd like to point out that your belief on whether the law is good or bad has nothing to do with its constitutionality and most of you seem oblivious to Supreme Court precedent. The only question from a legal perspective is whether there is a rational basis to conclude that healthcare costs substantially affect interstate commerce or is part of a scheme of legislation of interstate commerce. The answer from a legal perspective is obviously yes. The fact that you are required to purchase something is irrelevant as that is not the litmus test. The federal government under the commerce clause has required us to do a laundry list of things, including serve African-Americans just the same as you serve white people (the Civil Rights Act), not grow certain crops (specifically wheat) and perhaps most tenuous, not bring a gun into a school zone. Now you may not agree that the precedent was properly decided either (U.S. v. Lopez was quite controversial at the time), but at this point the precedent almost all points towards virtually unlimited power of the federal government under the commerce clause. Before you downvote me to oblivion, remember I'm only telling you the state of current law, not advocating it. The point is the gross expansion of federal powers under the commerce clause didnt' start with Obama, it didn't even start with Bush, it's evolved over decades and at this point there is no reason to expect a radical reversal, unless it is based entirely on political partisanship.

Now you're just embarassing yourself with your ignorance. In point of fact that case was already decided and yes the government can tell you what you can and can't grow on your own farm. That was decided in 1942 in the case of Wickard v. Filburn.

Obamacare is an outragous attempt to foist a Soviet-style communist health care system onto the American public. It looks like the Alito, Thomas, and rest of the right-thinking justices on the Supreme Court recognise the fact that in this country good health is not a birth-right - it is a privelage - and a privilege that should only be available to those who are hardworking, wealthy, and smart enough to pay for their own (non-subsidised!) insurance.

We should not try and emulate socialist hell-holes like Australia, Canada or Scandanavia where every dead-beat can access free public health systems regardless of whether they've saved up to pay for it or not.

The US got to be great through people standing on their own two feet and taking responsibility for their own health and well being. Not one dime of our taxes should go towards supporting socialized free health care for those too lazy, poor, old, or stupid to look after themselves.

But what the Supreme Court are doing here is only a start. They need to end all existing socialist programs in this country including Medicare, VA, Medicaid and Social Security. These government-run programs are just pandering to people's laziness and lack of personal responsibility and are totally un-American.

Medicare in particular is the worst socialist program ever introduced in this country (by another socialist Dem President - Lyndon Johnson in 1965). It's a single payer government run program funded from taxes paid by you and me - to support old sick people we don't even know.

Back in the '60s the GOP fought long and hard to prevent this communistic system becoming law. As Ronald Reagan said at the time the Dems were trying to force this thing through "If you and I don’t stop Medicare then one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

George HW Bush Described Medicare in 1964 as “socialized medicine at its worst” and. Same with Barry Goldwater who said: "Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.”

Social Security is another Communist program that needs to be abolished right now. Did you know that the U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget, accounting for 20.8% of the total budget? Needless to say it was introduced by yet another socialistic Democrat President - Franklin Roosevelt back in the 1930s. And what is 'social security' ? Its nothing but a program to take hard-earned money from the likes of you and me to allow lazy old people who didn't bother to save for their retirement during their working years to live high on the hog.

So good on the Supreme Court for being about to strike a death-blow against Obamacare. Now I just hope they will see fit to start unwiding the other socialist and communistical atrocities such as social security, Medicare, Medicade and VA - which are also totally unconstitutional and totally un-American.

[quote]As it turns out, "universal coverage" may not be so inevitable after all. Much to the chagrin (and apparent surprise) of President Obama and congressional Democrats, squabbling has erupted in earnest over who will spring for the exorbitant cost.

Fortunately, Obama has an exit strategy: "If there is a way of getting this done where we're driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate, and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I'd be happy to do it that way."

Well, there is a way: Let individuals control their health care dollars, and free them to choose from a wide variety of health plans and providers. If Congress takes those steps, innovation and market competition will make health care better, more affordable and more secure.

Experts suggest that one-third of U.S. health care spending, or about 6% of GDP, is pure waste. The reason is simple: Government controls half of our nation's health care dollars, and lets employers control an additional quarter. And nobody spends other people's money as carefully as they spend their own.

Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag told Congress last year: "Imagine what the world would be like if workers (understood) that today it was costing them $10,000 a year in take-home-pay for their employer-sponsored insurance,and that could be $7,000 and they could have $3,000 more in their pockets today if we could relieve these inefficiencies out of the health system." Nothing will increase consumers' understanding like giving them that $10,000 directly.

Letting consumers control the money requires two steps.

First, Congress should give Medicare enrollees a voucher, let them choose any health plan on the market, and let them keep the savings if they choose an economical plan. Medicare could even give larger vouchers to the poor and sick to ensure they could afford coverage.

Second, Congress needs to give consumers who purchase their own coverage the same tax break as workers with job-based coverage.

Leveling the playing field — whether with tax credits, a standard deduction for health insurance or "large" health savings accounts — would boost purchases of non-job-based coverage, which is critical to cutting the overall number of uninsured.

As important, it would give workers control over the entire $10,000 Orszag mentioned, for a total effective tax cut of $532 billion each year. Consumers would eliminate wasteful spending quickly, because they would keep the $3,000 in savings.

We should also eliminate harmful regulation. State health insurance regulations prevent people from purchasing health plans available in other states, and increase premiums by 15%. Similar regulations block competition from more efficient health plans and providers by preventing doctors from taking their licenses from state to state.

Americans deserve the freedom to purchase coverage across state lines. One study estimated that that move alone could cover 17 million uninsured Americans without costing taxpayers a dime. Compare that with Sen. Ted Kennedy's reform bill, whichspends $1 trillion and covers just 16 million uninsured.

Giving clinicians the freedom to practice medicine across state lines would eliminate barriers for retail clinics and economical health plans like Kaiser Permanente, which leads the market in electronic medical records and coordinated care. If we did that, Congress wouldn't need to throw $30 billion at ineffective pilotprograms that try to coordinate care.

Critics fear that market-based reforms would leave sick workers unable to obtain coverage. Yet that is already happening as employers drop coverage or eliminate jobs. In reality, these reforms would relieve, if not erase, that problem.

Leveling the playing field will force employers to give sicker workers more than the average $9,000 or $10,000 "cash-out," which will help them purchase coverage. When workers buy coverage directly from an insurer, far fewer will end up uninsured when they lose a job.

Finally, large HSAs would provide a tax relief even to those who are too sick to obtain coverage at all.

Perfection is not possible, of course. Former Senate Majority Leader and would-be Obama adviser Tom Daschle acknowledges, "Even if we achieve 'universal' coverage, there will be some percentage of people who still fall through the cracks."

The same is true of a free market. The advantage of markets is that innovation and competition fill in those cracks. A government-run, "universal" system makes them wider.

Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.More by Michael F. Cannon[/quote]

The penalty that they will level on "non participants" will be taken directly out of your tax return, the IRS is set to enforce the levy, and or possible imprisonment for any detected evasion of that code*. My accountant told me that last nght. Just unreal.

Expect it to pass in some shape or form because the collection and processing arms are already in place. Amerika!